When confronted with reality that women are people, too, journalism cannot actually handle it. They cannot place women in the hard news weave completely: there has to be a way to isolated the threat while pretending to be inclusive. It is the same when you are a child who is invited to a dinner party with your parents. You know you are going to be seated away from the hub of the real table. You will be sold a bill of goods that there is a "young people's" table, and then you are stuck on a wobbly bridge table off in the corner while the adults can easily ignore you.
If you are forced to go to the same house as an adult, it doesn't actually change. You are still move away from the adults, even if you are in your twenties. You may have a graduate degree and hold a white collar job, you are pushed away. You start complaining, there may be some shift, but the same troublesome group gets thrown at the bottom of the table.
I remember being the recipient of this kind of tradition, and one year, I decided to sit with the rest of my family near the top. The hostess had a fit.
I was 28.
The oldest "young person" was in their early 30s.
The other guests smirked, and said they could finally have a conversation with me, and ask me all about my job as a journalist, and politely protested when the hostess wanted me back down at the end of the table.
I had stories, after all.
But that same thinking permeates through journalism. There is the head table, and now there are all these women clamouring about something, and the Globe has a series of other "newsletters" -- so why not whip out another bridge table, call it "Amplify" to sound cool, and then stick all of that sophistry and opinion in a Pink Gulag near the end of the laundry list, and pretend you are inclusive and enlightened.
This isn't hard news. This is opinion, and such, is going to be the kind of things that fit into a patriarchal structure of thought.
This piece in particular stands out to me:
Amplify: As women stand divided on #MeToo, it isn’t age or ideology. It’s misplaced pain
First of all, this subject matter is not even news.
It makes it sound as if there are some divide in #MeToo, and that this is a problem.
This is typical Star Trek thinking where an entire planet of aliens all think and behave alike.
Women were never united on #MeToo. Ever. It is the same way that not all Christians walk lockstep with each other -- you have Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Anglican, Catholic, Evangelical, Baptist, and a slew of other kinds of Christianity.
The provincial Conservatives in Ontario have different preferences on the kind of leader they want -- no one is ever going to get 100% of the vote.
Americans didn't all vote for Donald Trump. Not all Democrats wanted Hillary Clinton and were devastated their pick Bernie Sanders didn't win the primaries.
So right off the bat, the premise of this article has a deep immaturity and a lack of foresight.
#MeToo was an American movement that began -- not with the poor or dispossessed women cowering in shelters -- but wealthy white women in the communications industry.
This may very well be one of the first social movements that came from a white collar segment.
There is nothing wrong with its pedigree, and, in fact, this is absolutely significant -- if women who have broken glass ceilings are reporting back that there are serious problems that high up -- everyone should be paying close attention.
It means if women are in positions of power, something has been seriously rigged that prevents them from fully exercising their power. It goes far deeper than changing laws because so many of those obstacles have been cleared, and yet, there is very little change or progress.
That is real news. That not all women subscribe to #MeToo is not.
So if you do not understand innate diversity, the rest of your premise falls apart, and #MeToo has nothing to do with this so-called "misplaced pain."
No, the pain is not misplaced. A certain demographic of women have witnessed things other women have not. They are reporting back, and their pain is real, legitimate, and hits it right on target.
This is typical of how Canadian journalists operate: strategic obedience to authority. You must appease that authority as you make excuses for their behaviour. In this case, it is demeaning those in #MeToo, hinting they are mistaken, silly, over-reacting, and perhaps a little hysterical. This is a stereotypical view of women: do not take what they say seriously because it can hurt the feelings of a man-child in power.
The fact that this article is in the Pink Gulag should surprise no one: it is there to reassure the big boys that they do not have to really make changes.
The Globe doesn't get it, and it lacks the intellectual dept to ever get it. It is all about spin to keep the overlords happy.
And that's not what #MeToo was ever about: it is about waging war with misogynistic rigs to tear them down.
Not this apologetic, rambling mess.